New Delhi:Ayodhya Bar Association's declaration that no lawyer will represent the accused in the alleged Ram Mandir donation embezzlement case with a warning that any lawyer who accepted their brief would face a Rs 5 lakh penalty has reignited one of the oldest dilemmas in the legal.

profession: Can a lawyer choose individual morality over legality, or does the very idea of justice demand that every accused person has a fearless advocate?English jurist William Blackstone once said: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Can a collective morality of a Bar association ignore this timeless doctrine - which has long shaped criminal jurisprudence?Senior members of the Supreme Court Bar believe the Ayodhya Bar Association's resolution crosses a constitutional line.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, while speaking to NDTV, said that for a lawyer, the issue is governed not by public sentiment but by what he describes as "legal morality."

According to him, a lawyer is expected to follow the "cab rank rule" - accepting a brief if the client seeks representation, can pay the fee, and there is no conflict of interest.Lawyers, he said, are not expected to act on the basis of prevailing social morality.

"Every accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, a guarantee flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, and has a corresponding right to legal representation. The burden remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt," Luthra explained.

In that context, Luthra said, however heinous the alleged offence may be, a collective declaration that no lawyer will represent an accused is inconsistent with the ethical obligations imposed by the Bar Council of India Rules.

Such a boycott, he added, could even justify transferring the trial outside the district - or, in an appropriate case, outside the State - to ensure a fair trial.

Source:Ndtv